The American Association of Diabetes Educators has spent big bucks this year ensuring its point of view gets across to our representatives in the federal government. The AADE spent $375,000 on lobbying in just the first half of 2007, according to a Senate disclosure form that has been picked up by the media. The law requires that such disclosures be made public. Members of the organization include big Pharma names like Eli Lilly, Novartis and Merck.

The AADE is, obviously, a member organization for diabetes educators, with advocacy in Washington - for professionals and patients - coming as an additional service. The government-run site Healthfinder lists more about the AADE if you're interested. Given the amount of money involved, I'm surprised how little attention this has attracted on the Web. Many news services have featured the disclosure, but only in brief. What I'd like to know is: what issues were the AADE lobbying for and against?

Remember learning about "checks and balances" in U.S. History class? When state leaders gathered in 1787 to draft the Constitution, they established three branches of government (legislative/executive/judicial) to protect individual freedom and prevent government from abusing its own power. Now, Congress is questioning the balance of powers over at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate have called for an investigation into the FDA in the wake of the New England Journal of Medicine study which suggests the popular diabetes medication, Avandia, significantly increases the risk of heart attacks. A House hearing is set for June 6.

Original trials by the drug's maker, GlaxoSmithKline, revealed twice the rate of ischemic heart disease for patients taking Avandia versus recipients of placebos. The medical reviewer for the FDA initially expressed concern, but determined the risk was more benign following further analysis.